Delay in renewing the maintenance contract for Court Recording Transcript Machines; with Minister

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson said there would be a report from the Department of Justice on the issue of court recording technology (CRT) following their oversight visit to various coastal and inland provinces. It had been found that there were problems with some of the CRT machines, especially in the Magistrates Courts, and as there were no court recordings, court cases had to be postponed. As a result, it was resolved by the Committee that the Minister and the Department had to appear before the Committee and give an account of this problem. They needed to explain this situation and what measures would be put in place to ensure it did not happen again. People appearing before a magistrate who would want their cases to be reviewed or appealed, would not be able to do so due to this issue of transcripts. This was a serious problem and did not serve justice to the people.

Minister on Department's response to CRT problem

Minister of Justice, Mr Ronald Lamola, said the state required a well-run and effectively coordinated state institution with skilled public servants committed to delivering services consistently to the people. The Department of Justice and Correctional Services was rebuilding from the bottom up because of the performance indicators of both Departments in the last two financial years. Upon his assuming office, the Department had a vacancy rate that exceeded 28% for senior management positions. Within a period of two years, this had been reduced by almost 10%. By the end of the current financial year, it would be reduced to 17%. It was also anticipated that by the end of the next financial year, which starts in April, all the senior positions would be filled.

He said that the Department did not have a Director-General, a Deputy Director-General for Corporate Services, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Director for Supply Chain, and several chief directors for critical positions at the senior management level. The CFO and the Chief Director for Supply Chain positions became vacant when the incumbents were undergoing disciplinary hearings on issues of misconduct that involved forensic reports. This was one of the consequences that had weakened the capacity of the Department for contract management. The senior management in the Department had not managed this process in an efficient manner. Contract management had been identified by the Department's senior management, the Minister and Deputy Minister, as high risk for the Department’s ability to perform its mandate. Section 38 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) places the responsibility on the accounting authority for financial management functions. Section 44 provides for the assignment of powers and duties by the accounting officer. Section 45 details the responsibilities of other officials.

From the perspective of the authority, he had called for a comprehensive review of what had led to the lapse of the contract without finding an alternative that the court could use. It had been alleged that whenever an alternative was found, it was not sufficient to respond to the needs of the court. There were also contract management challenges that affected the day-to-day operations of the Department, particularly in the information communication technology (ICT) area. The accounting officer had to take all reasonable steps to ensure that contracts were properly monitored and managed.

The Department had also impressed the Director-General on the need to implement effective consequence management, particularly where there was a lapse, like with these contracts. This would also be implemented when officials developed a laissez-faire attitude towards their work. This contract issue had been a subject of engagement between the Ministry and the Department's officials for several months. The main aim was to find solutions and identify where possible urgent intervention was needed. The DG would be in a position to address in detail some of those issues. The Department and the Minister would go around the country to monitor various challenges that the courts experience, such as infrastructure, technology and the systems in general.
           
He appreciated the recent visit conducted by the Committee to courts in various parts of the country. The Department was aware of the wide range of challenges that the Committee had come across, and he believed that the input the Committee had made would assist the Department to strengthen its systems in dealing with such challenges. The Department had strong views on the need to improve technology. For this to be achieved, they needed stakeholders like the State Information Technology Authority (SITA) to come on board. SITA played a major role in the administration of ICT in government departments.

The organisational structure approved by the executive would result in a complete overhaul of the role of ICT in the Department. This would be achieved through prioritising the internal capacity so that people with the prerequisite skills would be appointed to reduce or eliminate its full dependency on contractors. The entire ICT department was currently managed through contractors, and there was no internal capacity like in other departments.

In conclusion, he said the Department was in the process of addressing all the matters presented by the Committee. They were happy that issues the public face on a daily basis in the courts had been brought to their attention by the report of the Committee. The DG would present details of the issues that needed to be addressed, such as the backlogs at the courts, which had been a big concern to the Committee.

Discussion

Mr W Horn (DA) said the impact this issue had on the dysfunctionality of the court system was massive. It was clear from the answers the Minister had provided to the written questions that they were faced with a situation where almost every court case enrolled would automatically end up in the backlog. This also had a detrimental impact on the ability of stakeholders to deliver justice, as matters were prolonged. There were chances of evidence not being able to be recorded properly, and also losing track of witnesses.

The most concerning part was that it seemed the Minister deemed this as just another bump in the road. It was not necessary for him to use terms such as “building from the ground up” when referring to court recording technology. The Minister had given an indication in his very first budget speech in 2019 of the importance of court recordings in the modern age. He had boasted of the digital court recording technology that had been rolled out. It was not acceptable for him to say that due to vacancy issues, the Department found itself in a situation where the courts were still postponing matters due to a system that was not in place. He had to explain why it had taken so long to fill those vacancies. It was unacceptable to be told that in a space of two years, the vacancy rate had been brought down from 28% to 17%. The Minister needed to acknowledge that this aspect could have been handled better.

It was quite clear that even if there was lack of insight on the part of the Ministry about the importance of proper contract management, both the Committee and the Auditor-General (AG) had appraised the Minister of the importance of acting in a proactive manner regarding contract management. A meeting had taken place on 17 November 2020, where they had dealt with the findings from the previous financial year. It had been mentioned that there had been stagnation in respect of contract management and if it was not addressed soon, there would be dire consequences. He insisted that the Minister and the Department had been warned.

The Minister and the Department were aware that the procurement process dealing with the court recording technology had to start well ahead of time for the current contract not to run out. He asked why sufficient measures had not been put in place, knowing that the functionality of the courts' system could be faced with great challenges.

Lastly, there was a need for firm assurance about the new and improved systems around contract management. Early warnings about contracts ending had to be put in place. Procurement would have to start afresh. They had received assurances in the past from the Minister and the Department, so receiving verbal assurances was not good enough. He suggested that going forward, the Department must provide the Committee with a full report on what systems had been put in place, and what warnings would be activated for the process to start timeously to prevent a recurrence of such events.

Mr Q Dyantyi (ANC) wanted to agree with the Minister when he had said that this issue was at the core of the administration of justice. He felt that he had appropriately defined the problem. In other words, the issues that were being dealt with were the heartbeat of the Department. The Committee needed to know if the Department had a recovery plan for the identified problem that all might agree on -- whether it would be reliable so that everyone could follow it and take the necessary action.

When had the Minister become aware of this problem, and when was it brought to his attention by the Department? Knowing that the contract ended in April 2021, had he been aware of this problem then, or only when they did the oversight and issues were raised? Once he became aware of this issue, what had he done to remedy the situation? The Minister was the elected head of the Department, not just a functionary. The fact that he had identified this as the core of the administration of justice suggested that his focus must be on the impact of the administration of justice. His inputs would not be on where finances were directed, but rather on contract and management services. These services were currently impacting people with court cases that were being postponed because of this issue. There were 700 backlog cases, and perhaps the next question would be the nature of those cases. In the year 2020, the Committee had decided that this Department needed the assistance of the Public Service Commission (PSC). Based on this situation, he asked if the Minister was against their decision.

Lastly, the Committee was not sure whether or not the Department had shared with the Minister this issue of contract management, but it would be interesting to know what other services within the Department could end up like this as a result of this problem -- the kind of services that had not come to the attention of the Committee but were affected because of the same issue of contract management. 

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) acknowledged that the Minister had inherited most of the problems under discussion. Her main concern was whether the Minister was aware of the timeframes of the Department when it came to expiry of contracts so that replacements could take place. It had been mentioned that all the courts that were visited had the same contract management issues. Some were running on day-to-day contracts, if not monthly contracts. When they visited Mbombela, one contract had expired and was running on a quarterly basis. Was it possible for the Department to include in their plans to inform the Minister timeously of contracts that were about to expire? The Minister had mentioned that he had requested management to issue a report on consequence management on these issues. Did he have the report already -- was there any progress in this matter? Would legal action be taken against these officials? These officials could be somewhere in other departments, or within the same department in question. Was it possible to get these officials blacklisted? The Minister had also inherited old officials, which proved that this problem had been there a long time ago, so what was happening to those officials? These officials would not in any way accept or own up to this mistake. They would not even agree to pay in kind and work overtime to fix this mess. It would be helpful if the old officials were to sacrifice their time and assist in resolving this issue.

Minister's response

Minister Lamola agreed that it was indeed unnecessary and unacceptable that the Department found itself in this situation. The reason it had taken them so long to fill the vacancies had to do with processes they had to undergo, including the Cabinet process. Some of the positions took an average of six to 12 months to be approved. The issue that was at the core of this challenge was the fact that in the Department of Justice, as big as it was, the positions of Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the head of Integrated Safety Management (ISM) had been at the low level of chief director for some years. Only now, with the new organisational structure, had the posts been changed to the level of Director-General (DG), for which approval still needed to be granted from the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), which was not within the Department’s control.

The second issue was the fact that the Department's information and communication technology (ICT) systems were run by contractors. They had now approved an interim structure that would enable the Department to fill these positions and in-source them. For a Department as big as Justice to run its systems efficiently it would need internal capacity. From time to time it would need external service providers, but there must be a foundation or a background within the Department that was able to interact and handle such matters. This was the capacity they were looking at building up, however they were still awaiting approval.

The court recording technology (CRT) system should have been handled better. It was known that the contract was due, so the Department could have started with the process earlier and advertised positions. The DG and the Department officials would be in a position to address such issues. They would explain to the Committee what had really happened and the procurement processes involved. There had been a challenge in the Department with the lack of insight on contract management, and the issue had been raised by the Auditor-General (AG), so the Department had been directed to attend to it as a matter of urgency. At the time all these issues were happening, the Head of Supply Chain and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in the Department had been undergoing a disciplinary hearing, and they had simultaneously resigned at that time. This might not have been the reason for all of this, because there were supposed to have acted in those positions, but it had been a contributing factor. The fact that the disciplinary hearing had taken a long time before they had resigned, had also affected the operations of the Department.

He said that the issue had been brought to his attention around November of December last year. He had been informed by the DG, who had been summoned by the magistrate in Tzaneen to appear in court on this issue. The Deputy Minister (DM) had also raised this issue around the same time, which led to the convening of a meeting with the Department to engage on the solution. The Ministry office had been clear to the Department -- that service delivery was a priority and they needed to find a way to resolve this issue.

After looking into possible solutions, they could not find a way to resolve it due to its unique nature. The technology used was unique and tailor-made for the Department of Justice. The Department had gone out twice on a tender and received no response. They had requested that the Minister write to his counterpart at the Department of Communications and Digital Technology, Minister Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, and he had approached her around 17 December to request a deviation to the State Information Technology Agency  (SITA) Act to allow for the provision of CRT support and a management contract. Minister Ntshavheni had agreed to assist, which had enabled the DoJ to attend to some of the procurement issues, including engaging with National Treasury. The Department had been given a clear instruction to do everything legally possible to ensure that a service provider was found to help with the CRT system.

The DG would explain issues related to National Treasury and the consequence management for those who were involved in allowing the contracts to lapse. The Committee could be assured that this would not be the case again, because the Ministry office had requested that the whole management contract system must report all the contracts that might fall into the same category. They had confirmed that at this stage there were none, but they had been strictly advised to notify the Minister on time if such things happened.

Some of the officials were still working in the Department, but some of them were not responsible for this issue because it fell under court services, supply chain and finance, which they were not part of. Some of the vacancies had been filled, which included the post of CFO, who would start work on 1 April. She was a former CFO at the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), where she had served for a period of ten years. She would help in the contract and finance areas, and be able to come to terms with their challenges. Other vacancies were being filled which they believed would enable them to respond promptly to these issues.

He said the Department always worked with the DPSA, who were their advisors on various aspects related to the DoJ. With the new reporting lines, there would be some improvements in performance that would be recorded in the quarterly reports. By the end of this financial year, the Committee would be able to see a significant improvement in the performance of the Department.

The Chairperson asked the Minister how many times the Department received risk assessment reports, met with their top management team, and discussed the report of the internal audit department.

The Minister responded that the set dates to meet with the Department was quarterly, but from time to time they engaged with the DG on various aspects and issues. The last meeting they had recently was with the legislative branch for a briefing on the Land Bill, dealing with some of the issues that had been raised by the public. There were regular interactions as and when there were issues. They also had risk reports during their meetings.

The Chairperson concluded that there would be a need for another meeting because this was just an introduction based on many issues that still needed to be addressed. Issues that involved the Accounting Officer and other senior officials still needed to be addressed with the Minister and required answers. However, this could be arranged at the next meeting, due to time constraints.

He excused the Minister to attend a Cabinet meeting. The date for the next meeting would be scheduled by the Committee.

Department's response

Adv Doc Mashabane, DG, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, said the Department had taken note of the matters raised during the Minister's presentation, and these would be addressed. The Department would cover all the issues of concern.

He said that three to six months before the expiry of the CRT contract, there had been a challenge with the top management of the Department. There had been instability caused by a vacancy in the DG's office, and the fact that the acting chief information officer (CIO), who was responsible for managing this contract had left in August. On the same note, the CFO had also suspended, as well as the head of supply chain management (SCM), whose responsibility fell into this area. These were not excuses but critical factors, as the AG had highlighted that the strategic management of the Department at that time was at a turning point.

It had been years since the Department had taken the approach of using contract employees for project management. Most employees who were on contracts had had to be released in September because their contracts could no longer be renewed. Looking at the number of contracts that the Department had to manage, particularly ICT and general contracts, there was no trace of an effective contract management system. The Internal Risk Management System (IRMS) of the Department had highlighted this fact in 2018 and 2019. The new Acting CFO had come in August and had to battle with a number of issues, including the mid-term budget assessment and preparation of the new budget of the Department. The CRT system was deployed from the year 2015 for a period of five years, running until the first or second week of April 2021, and was the first deployment of that specific court recording technology.

Just around the period this problem had started, the contract had expired. From August when there were no other measures to deal with it, procurement efforts had started. The SITA request for quotation (RFQ) 1153 which was supposed to be used to find a replacement for the maintenance of the CRT system, became a huge problem for the Department. From August to December the problem started to increase, so during that period, the Department had worked hard to ensure that there was a contract in place. This was until a request was made to the Minister of Communications and Digital Technology, who had been unable to assist the Department. Treasury had hired someone to assist, but due to contractual issues, the official had left after just two months in this position. Given the background of this matter, they had resorted to asking their colleagues to reflect on the measures and intervention plans that were in place to identify similar matters. The enterprise risk assessment had picked this issue up from as early as 2018 to 2019.

The Department would deal with the general backlogs that the courts were experiencing. With regional courts, backlog cases were those that had been on the roll for more than nine months, whereas with district courts it was cases that had been on the roll for more than six months. The Department was working on a plan to address the general backlog that had been contributed to by multiple factors, such as Covid-19, external factors and other related challenges like load shedding. In September last year. there had also been a ransomware attack on the Departmental system, and it had taken more than two months for a full recovery.

Ms Conny Mametja, DDG: Corporate Services, DJCD, took the Committee through a detailed presentation to explain the reasons for the delay in finalising the procurement of the CRT system.

She said the CRT support and maintenance contract had expired on 21 April 2021. In anticipation of this expiry, the Department had put in place a plan to have the contract renewed by the end of March 2021, as contained in the 2020/21Departmental procurement plan. However, due to many disruptions and delays, this process could not be completed in time as anticipated. In the main, the reason for the delays in finalising the procurement could be attributed to the following factors:

The national lockdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic;
A non-existing Departmental bid adjudication committee;
Personnel shortages; and
Contract extension negotiations not succeeding.

Given the delays experienced with the process to procure a new service provider to maintain the CRT machines, the Information Systems Management (ISM) unit had submitted a request to extend the CRT contract by a further two months. This matter was served at the Department's bid adjudication committee (DBAC) towards the end of March 2021. The DBAC had found that the quotation was not consistent with the original terms and conditions of the contract. The matter was referred to the ISM for rectification with the then service provider. A resubmission of the request was made, and regrettably, the quotation was still not consistent with the original terms and conditions of the contract. The service provider requested a meeting on the eve of the contract expiry. At this meeting, the service provider was requested to revise its quotation and submit it the following day.

The DBAC had been appointed and was operating efficiently, with a mandate to prioritise ICT procurements. An early warning contract management system had been strengthened to ensure procurement items were started timeously and tracked until completion. A departmental circular had been issued that made it compulsory for senior management service (SMS) members to participate in the Bid Specification Committee (BSC) and the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC). A dedicated SCM senior manager was appointed to focus specifically on ICT projects. There was training of users in basic understanding of the system. Greater emphasis was placed on skills transfer to DOJ employees, so they could provide basic troubleshooting skills and undertake repair of the most common issues.

Mr Henton Katz, Acting Head: ISM and Chief Information Officer, DOJ, reported that the backlog position as at 31 August 2021, stood at 35 391 cases nationally. Since August 2021, the ransomware attack had shut down the Department’s systems, making it difficult to capture and track the number of cases and extract integrated correctional management systems (ICMS) reports. The latest conservative number of backlog cases that had been possible to capture on the systems as at 28 February 2022, stood at 40 106 cases nationally. The backlog in the district courts stood at 15 959 (22.60%), while the regional courts were at 24 147 (64.70%). The highest backlogs were in the regional courts, which would inevitably affect the sexual offences cases. The total number of backlog sexual offences cases countrywide stood at 12 557 cases on 31 March 2021. The total number of backlog sexual offences cases countrywide had increased to15 605 cases as at 31 December 2021 and would have increased by the end of February.

He described the interventions to improve court efficiency.

Facilities:

• Procure portable battery pack – to overcome load shedding.
• Procurement of generators and installation of solar panels.
• Appointing pre-approved professionals such as engineers and architects to facilitate minor maintenance work.
• Appointing artisans like electricians, plumbers and painters, and providing them with tools of trade to carry out day-to-day maintenance in courts quickly

Security

• Threats and risk assessments done with the South African Police Service (SAPS) to improve the security of the judiciary and prosecutors when requested.
• Security assessments per court being conducted.
• Physical security improved through the installation of burglar bars.
• Audio-visual equipment installed to enhance guarding services.
• Covid-19 protocols observed, and personal protective equipment (PPE) procured.

Internal audit presentation

Mr Max Budeli, Chief Director, Internal Audit, DOJ, explained the role played by the internal audit (IA) department in relation to the CRT system. The Department had issued a directive that bids of more than R10 million had to be reviewed by IA prior to awarding, as part of risk mitigation measures. The IA had reviewed CRT bids on three occasions and had found that in two instances, the bids were non-responsive, and in the third -- which was a review of the bid specifications -- the recommendation had been made for the terms of reference (TOR) to be published.

The IA's interventions were monitoring key contracts on monthly basis and reporting to the Accounting Officer and executive committee (EXCO) on shortcomings until the environment was fully stabilised, and continuing with the review of contract management processes and recommending improvements

Enterprise risk management (ERM) presentation

The roles and responsibilities of ERM in the Department were to assist and support management to identify and monitor risks, and to prioritise top risks according to their exposure towards the achievement of outcomes and objectives as set out in the Departmental strategic plan. 

The risk of inadequate contract management, including management of the CRT contract, had been identified in the Department as a priority risk. The main contributing factors to the contract management risk were the instability within the supply chain management and information systems management because of the high turnover of key personnel, and the unavailability of officials to serve as panel members for both the BSC and BEC.

Mitigation would be provided by:

the finalisation of the Departmental structure;
communication to end users as well as the service provider in relation to contracts;
addressing the ICT structure and the appointment of bid committees;
the filling of vacant SCM posts;
the appointment of the CFO;
the secondment of skilled personnel from other areas of the Department to the SCM environment; and
issuing reminders to the heads of branches, informing them about contracts due to expire within 12 months on monthly basis.

The Department was currently updating a new contract monitoring tool introduced by National Treasury which would be mandatory by 1 April 2022. There was also the directive from the Director-General for all SMS members to participate in the bid specification and evaluation committees.

Discussion

Mr Horn said that irrespective of the presentation made, the Department had acknowledged that the risk around contract management had been identified as far back as 2018/19. There was no excuse, considering the way things had unfolded on the issue of CRT and contract management. It could only be described as maladministration and gross negligence by the Department. He argued that the DG had said that the ransomware attack and the senior management vacancies were unexpected, which he felt was unacceptable.

Uncertainties still remained in respect of where the Committee found itself with the CRT system. Based on the presentation, there was a 12-month appointment and an interim emergency measure, but still the feedback was that the CRT/CCTV at the courts was not functional. If the 12-month deviation appointment had happened, he would like to know when the service provider would come on board, and when the expected delivery date was when they could start seeing some functionality. On the longer contract, the presentation was not clear about the appointment of a new service provider by the Department before the contract ran out. It was alleged that the courts had been instructed not to upload anything in their integrated case management system at this stage. However, the presentation had created a picture that the Department was back to its full functionality since the ransomware attack. He requested an explanation about that, and when the interventions to deal with the backlogs would be in place. 

In respect of contract management, the Committee had been assured that early warning systems were in place and contract management systems had been strengthened, which was difficult to believe considering the Mbombela magistrates court incident. They were not able to make outgoing landline calls, and throughout 2019 the whole of the Free State had been hit by the same occurrence. At the stage where they were under the impression that the Department would prevent a recurrence, on their second visit on 24 February, the same thing had happened again. Later in the day, while they were at the high court, they had been informed that the contract for the security service was coming to an end. Mr Skosana, Chief Director in the DOJ, had been taken aback and assured the Committee that measures would be put in place to extend the contract but had later admitted that there was nothing that could be done as the contract had ended. As a temporary measure, he had asked that the security personnel at the regional court be placed at the high court.

Mr Dyantyi asked the DG if he had done an assessment report on the state of the Department when he came in. It could have assisted the DG to understand what he had inherited and the changes or improvements he might need to implement in the new Department. The DOJ was requested to give the Committee a full report on the backlogs between April and November. The report would help them to make intelligent conclusions by knowing if there was progress or not. The figures on the slide of the presentation had been thumb-sucked and were not a true reflection. The Minister had admitted in the presentation that they could not give accurate figures, so the right decisions could not be made using the wrong figures.

On the early warning systems in the Department, he requested the DG and the team to present a list of contracts that would expire. They were relying on consultants to do the most critical work. The Minister had admitted that the CRT systems were provided on a contract basis. The Department had to produce a recovery plan. He asked why the Minister was told only in November about the contract that had expired in April. He recalled the Chairperson asking the Minister about the regularity of their meetings with senior management and the team. The Minister had said they met quarterly, and he was not convinced that in the two meetings held in seven months he had still not been told about this issue.

Talking about consequence management, the Minister should start with the DG as a representative and head of the Department. This issue had caused a lot of unnecessary problems, financial issues, costs that could have been avoided, backlogs, and people paying more because of cases that were postponed. 

Concerning the internal audit, the DG and all the officials were highly paid to come up with strategic advice that could help to resolve issues. The presentation was not clear on what they advised. The limited advice that they provided had been overshadowed by the problem. The Minister had confirmed that they met on a quarterly basis with his senior management -- what was the advice if they did their work quarterly?

The chief risk officer's presentation was not helpful -- it was limited and very shallow. One of the duties of the CRO was to introduce monthly reminders. The CRO could have shown the Committee the schedule or spreadsheet showing the risks classified and the mitigation measures that needed to be done. This was where consequence management came in -- when a unit had been advised by the risk officer well ahead of time to renew contracts, and failed to do so. The risk officer should advise where things went wrong. What actions had been taken to discipline the perpetrators?

Mr X Nqola (ANC) referred to the backlogs that were reported to have increased during the period the CRT machines were not working. With the report of a ransomware attack in the Department, there was no certainty as to the accuracy of the figures. The Department must advise on the record if the figures they had presented to the Committee were accurate. How had the management instability impacted the spending of the Department, particularly on two programmes, the compensation of employees and court services?

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) complained that she did not get a sense of urgency in regard to this matter. She posed a question on the contracts that had expired and the fact that the Minister was informed only in November, which was seven months later. What had been put in place to make sure that a ransomware attack did not take place?

Ms Maseko-Jele expressed her dissatisfaction with the leadership of the Department and said they were being paid to be on holiday, whereas they were supposed to be working. The Risk Officer was not giving the right advice to the Department. There had been no progress from the previous meeting -- the Committee was still being presented with long standing issues from 2011 which were recurring. At the next meeting, it might be necessary for them to have timelines on all the issues. The Department needed to present a clear and visible plan to the Committee at the upcoming meeting.

Mr Nqola expressed great disapproval that the DOJ had classified Covid-19 among the challenges that had affected the performance of their work. They were hiding their incompetency behind the Covid-19 ordeal. The Committee had operated and filled positions in the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) during Covid-19 times, so it would not accept this as an excuse. The fact that the employees did not have the tools of trade could be blamed only on the Department. It was a known fact that government had provided the necessary tools for all its departments to proceed during the pandemic.

Department's response

DG Mashabane asked if his colleagues may speak on related issues before he addressed the Committee. He wanted the risk department and court administration to comment on the accuracy of the statistics and the ransomware attack.

He also informed the Committee about their longest-serving official in the Department, Adv JB Skosana, who had retired at the end of February. However, they had secured his services at the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) as a full-time commissioner, to assist with the review of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977, as amended. They hoped that by the time Parliament rose, they would have adopted a brand new Criminal Procedure Act that would take into account all the recent developments, particularly the use of technology.

Mr V Mahlangu, Chief Director: Risk and Security Management, DOJ, said that he was not being defensive or citing an excuse for the operations of Risk Management Enterprise (RME), but its functions had not been residing within the office of the DG until the current financial year. It was only recently that the Accounting Officer had indicated that the functions needed to reside within the office of the DG so that the advice could be close to the office.

He also indicated that the issue of communicating with service providers concerning the lapses of contracts did not come from the Risk Department but through the supply chain management. The Department had established the area that specifically dealt with contract management.

Internal audit functions were prescribed on how to run its business. They provide assurance and advisory services on risk management, control and governance services to ensure that goals and objectives were met. Whenever they performed assessments, they also provide recommendations so that improvements could be made. Concerning CRT, reviews were made according to the directive that had been given by the Department that contractors should be reviewed by the internal auditors. As part of their prescribed work, they were required and expected to be objective and independent in raising matters without being afraid or intimidated. He indicated that from the risk management perspective, the Accounting Officer and senior management were very supportive of their work.

Ms Mametja said that the 12-month contract was already on site. They had started addressing the 417 calls that had been lodged concerning the non-functionality of the CRT. They had already assessed 395 of those cases, and 161 were already fixed. However, some of the hardware should be replaced, so it had already been ordered. Covid-19 had been given as a reason for the delay in SCM processes, and due to the confidentiality and sensitivity of the documents the police were dealing with, it had been almost impossible that they could run such processes from home.

Mr Bongani Mlambo, Director: Special Programmes, DOJ, said that the process had taken longer than expected due to a prolonged period without any intervention. An assessment needed to be done to establish the extent of the damage and the tools required to fix it. There was a need for a structure to be put in place. During the time the contract had expired to date, many sub-contractors contracts had lapsed and there were no resources available, even from the service providers' side. However, the issue had been dealt with. A replacement had to be ordered within the correct turnaround time of four to six weeks. They had committed to eliminate the priority backlog in the next week or so. In the remaining 46 weeks, they were looking at finishing off everything. They were attending daily meetings to deal with any escalations that arose as part of the process. They had also scheduled weekly meetings with the service provider’s executive team. They have come fully on board in support of the system to ensure that the backlog had been covered. There were also weekly meetings scheduled with the court services to provide feedback to optimise the backlog process.

The new service provider for the three-year period would be appointed once the process had gone through SITA for approval. Realistically, the process could be concluded by the end of June. Their main focus was to provide an alternative solution when the courts' systems were down. They had deployed 147 mobile recorders, and would also increase the number for backup. In the last six weeks, they had capacitated their internal resources. The Department’s IT coordinators and service providers across the country were being offered some level of training on troubleshooting, and fixing the basic issues they encountered. After the ransomware attack, they had rebuilt all the Department’s infrastructure and its systems were running efficiently. Upon return of the hardware, the whole structure would be fixed. They had upgraded firewalls, installed the latest antivirus version, and implemented a Security Incident Management Tool (SIMT) that worked as a tracker. They had started a process with Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for vulnerability assessment. A continuity plan was ready for approval and processes needed to be put in place for operations to run.

DG's remarks

DG Mashabane said that around September 2021, they had enquired with their colleagues about the state of the contracts, and had been assured that there were no expiring contracts. It was in mid-December 2021, during their break, that the Department system had collapsed with a massive amount of expired contracts. They had had to engage with Treasury for assistance and fortunately had managed to get it to assist with the contracts that had created challenges in the Department. This had led to them setting up a 'war room' task team to deal with such matters. The Department had invited their colleagues from the head office to go to the provincial offices and assist with these issues. They had been with them for the past six months and were already seeing progress.

The Department had 22 valid contracts currently in place, of which three were about to expire within one year. 16 contracts were problematic, including the CRT under discussion. They had implemented 16 priority projects, started first interacting with National Treasury to obtain the necessary extensions and deviations. They had also started with long term assessments and putting in place long term solutions. They were meeting on a weekly basis to reflect on the progress with processes. The Department's Adjudication Committee had come on board and also had meetings on Saturdays and Sundays to ensure that there was movement towards these long term solutions. The internal audit division had also cut down on reviews for two weeks, getting them an external assurance in one week.

16 projects were at an award stage. Around February, there were issues with projects that were at the bid specification committee stage and were not yet advertised due to a Constitutional Court judgment that had a ruling on the Preferential Policy Framework (PPF). They had had to go back to National Treasury for assistance and had been advised to request an exemption from the particular PPR 2017 process so that they could move forward with the 16 projects.

Mr Nhlanhla Mthembu, Acting CFO, DOJ, said that measures would be put in place to improve the procurement turnaround times. This would definitely assist in improving the challenge of contract management in the Department. There was a close relationship with the procurement process and how best contracts could be managed. During the time he had been acting CFO the issue of capacity had been a reality and they had done everything within their power to keep the operation running. With senior management positions filled, there would be much needed stability, especially in the finance department. It was expected that in six months or so, they would be out of this ineffective and inadequate contract management situation. The expired contracts would have contractors and service providers appointed at least three months before the expiry of the contract.

Mr Tsetse Malema, Acting Head: Court Services, DOJ, told the Committee that they had provided a report on actual plans, with activities and timelines. For the new financial year, they had provided a detailed quarterly report and qualified their data, which was conservative data. Their systems were being rebuilt, and the IT people involved had mentioned some of the work they had done to clean up the system. The data available was what was on the system. It was not thumb-sucked, and although it might not be accurate in respect of the capturing itself, should one go an extra percentage on the date given, one would end up with the same number.

He confirmed that the Department would write a report as requested by the Committee that showed the backlogs before and after Covid-19, and after the ransomware attack, when the contract had expired up until when the CRT had started malfunctioning.

Ms Z Maxuba, Head: National Statistics, DOJ, referred to the challenges that the courts were facing by not being able to capture on time. The system was mostly unavailable and was sometimes down. She also confirmed that they would be able to provide the Committee with a report and give a breakdown of the backlogs prior to 2021 and the ransomware attack.

DG Mashabane said that since the advent of modernisation and the deployment of modern technology to assist with court administration and the administration of justice, there had been over reliance on the system. There needed to be a business continuity plan that would allow the system to continue operating. The ransomware attack had been a challenge to the system. They were working on a system that would be adaptive when such incidents occurred. There was no recovery plan. The problems were associated with SITA, and would not be resolved at the official level. They had approached the Minister to engage at the political level but had not succeeded. The Accounting Officer had had no other option but emergency procurement, which had meant disregarding any form of a procedure to get a service provider who was able to install the court recording technology. Treasury had come in to regularise the process by giving them a 12-month sole service provider who was able to assist for now.

The DG said he had accepted that with the new financial year, in a short period of time from now, he would no longer be considered a new employee. He understood the expectations that the Committee had. 90% of the senior management team had been less than 24 months in their positions. The entire senior management team had completely changed. They had a full appreciation of the historical challenges that rested on their shoulders, and on taking forward the process to reposition the Department by ensuring that it was at the centre of the delivery of access to justice for all.

The Auditor-General's report for the past three years gave a solid basis on which to appreciate the progress of the Department. The main problem remained ICT procurement in the Department, and the key aspect was the contract management which was currently being resolved. When the Department returned to the Committee to present for the new financial year, there would be clear indicators to show progress on this problem and the steps taken to succeed.

Chairperson's remarks

The Chairperson said that this was the first of a few meetings that would still be held with the Department, based on the visits the Committee had conducted. They would continue to have these meetings as part of their oversight visits. He asked the DG how many people he had taken through consequence management processes since he took over the office, except for those who had been charged with corruption and resigned.

DG Mashabane responded there was one case at a senior level that was still running, and they were hoping that it would be concluded before the end of the month. It involved a performance issue.

The Chairperson reiterated that the Committee was required to report to the House on their oversight visit. The issues raised by Mr Dyantyi and Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen would form part of the report. They were going to ask the House to engage the Public Service Commission. Those who had served on this Committee could attest that they had heard these utterances before. Although a lot had been said and promises had been made, the truth remained what was facing the Committee was a dysfunctional system.

As representatives of the people, the Committee could longer be satisfied with administrative reports when the impact from the ground was different from what was presented in strategic reports. It could not be accepted -- accountability was needed. Members had to be able to explain to the people the challenges that the Department of Justice was facing. The Department had to address all the burning issues affecting the people. Their predecessors in the Department had promised the same turnaround for many years. They had claimed that the vacancy rate had been 28% and would be brought down to 17%, but the public service standard said it should be 10% or below, so 17% was still very high.

The Committee understood that the whole senior management team was comprised of new people, but it was necessary for new and improved systems to be developed -- but not systems that were based on incumbents, so that when they left the system collapsed. Both the Committee and the Department needed to work together to strengthen the state as a whole. Mr Dyantyi had said the vacancy rate had been high since 2011, and it was now 2022, and the Department was happy that it had dropped to 17%, which was still very high. It could still take another ten years for it to drop that low again. The people were not ready to wait for ten years -- they needed change now.

He advised the DOJ to engage with the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure because there was a disaster waiting to happen at the Palm Ridge Magistrates Court. The judiciary and everybody who worked there was concerned that the court could collapse any time soon. These were concerning matters that required urgent attention.

The meeting was adjourned.